mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00013877.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "18",
    "document_number": "761",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 761 Filed 08/10/22 Page 18 of 246 2313 LCGVMAX1\nDr. Loftus's opinions on suggestive activities are generally admissible. The government argues that the above two opinions, however, lack a foundation in the record. I'm going to deny the government's motion to preclude here, but with guidance.\nFirst, as we've discussed and I've made clear, Dr. Loftus is testifying, I understand, as a blind expert, meaning that she'll provide relevant expert opinion, but not apply it to the facts of the case. And just as Dr. Rocchio offered testimony that included examples of grooming, variety of grooming examples or factors that might make a child vulnerable to sexual abuse, it seems comparable to me that Dr. Loftus can offer examples of suggestive activity, including the two examples the government seeks to exclude. So long as her testimony does not state that those activities occurred in this case or go into any specifics of the case, that would be beyond the bounds of a blind expert.\nSecond, I think there is -- the defense has provided an adequate foundation for expert opinion on suggestive questioning by the government by cross-examining witnesses about the questions they were asked. For example, the defense on cross-examination of Jane asked about the government asking her the same question three times in the same interview, trial transcript at 515. And Jane testified that the government, quote, communicated to her through her attorney that The Lion King didn't come out until 1997, which the defense also\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00013877",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 761 Filed 08/10/22 Page 18 of 246 2313 LCGVMAX1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Dr. Loftus's opinions on suggestive activities are generally admissible. The government argues that the above two opinions, however, lack a foundation in the record. I'm going to deny the government's motion to preclude here, but with guidance.\nFirst, as we've discussed and I've made clear, Dr. Loftus is testifying, I understand, as a blind expert, meaning that she'll provide relevant expert opinion, but not apply it to the facts of the case. And just as Dr. Rocchio offered testimony that included examples of grooming, variety of grooming examples or factors that might make a child vulnerable to sexual abuse, it seems comparable to me that Dr. Loftus can offer examples of suggestive activity, including the two examples the government seeks to exclude. So long as her testimony does not state that those activities occurred in this case or go into any specifics of the case, that would be beyond the bounds of a blind expert.\nSecond, I think there is -- the defense has provided an adequate foundation for expert opinion on suggestive questioning by the government by cross-examining witnesses about the questions they were asked. For example, the defense on cross-examination of Jane asked about the government asking her the same question three times in the same interview, trial transcript at 515. And Jane testified that the government, quote, communicated to her through her attorney that The Lion King didn't come out until 1997, which the defense also",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00013877",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Dr. Loftus",
      "Dr. Rocchio",
      "Jane"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22",
      "1997"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "761",
      "515",
      "DOJ-OGR-00013877"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage to the text."
}